Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intelligence Required To Grasp The Concepts Of Objectivism

Rate this topic


tnunamak

Recommended Posts

Just something I've been thinking about. Certain people I know would just not be able to grasp certain concepts which must be understood to fully comprehend Objectivism. I know, because I've tried explaining, and even simple things just don't get through (not because they reject it, because they can't understand it). How do these people fit into becoming morally ideal individuals? Do they have a chance at it?

Edited by tnunamak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think a relatively small percent of the population can grasp philosophy (of any sort) in a conscious, fundamental, lucid way: at least to the point that they can understand the underlying structures/premises and form conclusions/connections based on these structures/premises. I'd estimate that about 15% of the population are primarily conceptual thinkers, while the other 85% are primarily concrete thinkers to more or less of a degree.

As best as I can describe it: conceptual thinkers are nonlinear in mental processing: meaning, if you say "Ayn Rand" - they have an almost immediate "concept" of what this phrase implies as a systematic whole.

Concrete thinkers, on the other hand, are more linear in processing: meaning, they must "connect the dots" every time when making theoretical conclusions. This makes fast paced theoretical discussion more difficult for them.

While some concrete thinkers can understand philosophical abstractions fundamentally, it takes much more effort - it isn't their natural way of thinking. I'm sure many of us have been somewhat puzzled by people we have met who seem genuinely strained and exhausted from excessive abstract discussion. For these sorts, having experiences, or at least clear concrete examples, that represent and symbolize these abstractions helps a great deal in grasping the underlying premises.

Some may also seemingly grasp what is being said, but don't actually make any connection with it to their subconsciouis philosophical framework of reality, and entirely forget about it at the end of the conversation.

For those that just don't do well with conceptual thinking: I say just hammer into their skulls: "Don't initiate force or fraud against anyone, and don't advocate the government doing the same. Work for your own happiness as your goal in life - because it's yours and no one elses'. In other words: hands off." This is pretty easy to grasp and can be carried away by most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that just don't do well with conceptual thinking: I say just hammer into their skulls: "Don't initiate force or fraud against anyone, and don't advocate the government doing the same. Work for your own happiness as your goal in life - because it's yours and no one elses'. In other words: hands off." This is pretty easy to grasp and can be carried away by most people.

And for the really slow, just get them to believe TANSTAAFL. (for non-heinlein fans "There Aint No Such Thing As A free Lunch")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain people I know would just not be able to grasp certain concepts which must be understood to fully comprehend Objectivism. I know, because I've tried explaining, and even simple things just don't get through (not because they reject it, because they can't understand it). How do these people fit into becoming morally ideal individuals? Do they have a chance at it?
I think most people thought to be not smart enough to grasp a philosophy (barring Kantianese :D ) more likely just suffer from Mycroft syndrome when it comes to philosophy. They understand the basic idea and can understand additional premises... they just don't find it particularly worthy of their time.

Any adult short of a vegetable or madman implicitly understands what morality is. But explaining philosophy to some people is like explaining chess to a hyperactive child or football to someone who hates sports. These things are complex to an extent, but not so much that a layman couldn't understand them... if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

corrupt, wicked genius.

Corrupt wicked genius?. A genius might be wrong and in many regards even immoral, but corrupt and wicked? That is impossible.

A genius is someone much more capable of conceptualizing than others, conceptualizing from facts of reality while a corrupt and evil person is someone who accepts things on faith. Both things can't be present in the same person. A person can't be a genius and Hitler at the same time.

Just something I've been thinking about. Certain people I know would just not be able to grasp certain concepts which must be understood to fully comprehend Objectivism. I know, because I've tried explaining, and even simple things just don't get through (not because they reject it, because they can't understand it). How do these people fit into becoming morally ideal individuals? Do they have a chance at it?

Failure to understand a true idea and/or to reject a false one represents a failure of conceptualization. In my experience, it is more due to the philosophy drilled in people since their childhood that makes it very difficult for them to conceptualize.

Edited by tommyedison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrupt wicked genius?. A genius might be wrong and in many regards even immoral, but corrupt and wicked? That is impossible. A genius is someone much more capable of conceptualizing than others, conceptualizing from facts of reality while a corrupt and evil person is someone who accepts things on faith. Both things can't be present in the same person. A person can't be a genius and Hitler at the same time.

Why is an evil person someone who accepts things on faith? Using faith is an epistemological failure, not a moral one, yes? I offer for your consideration three people:

1. Person A says "B is the right thing because I've thought about it, rational self-interest, etc., and I'm going to do it." A is a hell of a guy. Thinks about what the right thing is and does it.

2. Person C says "D is the right thing because I prayed and God revealed to me what I should do, and I'm going to do it." C could still be a decent guy. He does what he thinks is the right thing, though he makes an enormous error in how he got there.

3. Person E says "F is the right thing because I've thought about it, rational self-interest, etc., but I'm not going to do it. I'm going to do G even though I know it's wrong."

I think person E is far and away the most evil of the bunch, and in fact is the only evil person in the bunch. He made no epistemological failure--he used reason to reach a conclusion. He did not have to accept anything on faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people can grasp the concepts of Objectivism, they might have a hard time grasping certain branches of it but i think the trick is to ease yourself into it. An example, I started talking to one of my friends about Objetivist Ethics, he has not read any Rand. He said he doesn't think he is smart enough to understand all of it and it got me thinking about this very topic. By ease into it, as I mentioned before, I mean that most people couldn't start out with Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, even I don't think I'm 100% ready for it yet, haha. I told him if he starts with The Fountainhead he'll be able to grasp the basic message of Objectivist as well as a little extra and how it relates to one's goals in life. That is what attracted me to it from the first chapter on. After that I told him to read Atlas Shrugged and if he is still interested, to dive into the non-fiction. This is what I did, I'm reading my 2nd Rand non-fiction (PWNI) and I understand most of it so far, still a little confused about anti-concept mentalities. I'm grasping it better with each day though and I think that this way would work for most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
For these sorts, having experiences, or at least clear concrete examples, that represent and symbolize these abstractions helps a great deal in grasping the underlying premises.
You have to be really careful here. While it looks like both of you agree on the same example, it is still needed for a person to abstract the correct concept out of it in order to properly apply it elsewhere. The bottom line is: one needs abstract thinking, you can't substitute it with concrete/specific examples. Of course, examples do help if the person has a good abstract ability.

Furthermore, you might be falling into a trap of thinking they understand the concept. Example: chess requires quite a bit of knowledge and understanding of abstract concepts of the game. Now, imagine you know them, and playing against somebody you've never played before. You might easily confuse their ability if judging from specific moves they have made. It requires a lot more analysis to assess one's ability of playing chess. Same applies to philosophy.

I say just hammer into their skulls: "Don't initiate force or fraud against anyone, and don't advocate the government doing the same. Work for your own happiness as your goal in life - because it's yours and no one elses'. In other words: hands off." This is pretty easy to grasp and can be carried away by most people.
Ouch. This idea can lead to so many problems (and probably did). Computers are awesome in this case, they execute what they are told very well. Humans don't.

There is Russian wisdom: "Teach a fool how to pray and he will break his head" (for example, by hitting the floor while praying) A fool is a fool. You can't substitute his poor intellect with something else to "patch" it up.

Though, something needs to be done, so we don't have fools running around commiting all sorts of crimes everythere without knowing that it is a crime/immoral. Luckily, decent intellect can be taught during early childhood.

I think most people can grasp the concepts of Objectivism, they might have a hard time grasping certain branches of it but i think the trick is to ease yourself into it.
Indeed. Just as when studying Math, you need to start from the basics and then move up to more and more complex/involved concepts.

And if you were to show someone a math concept that is beyond their current level of understanding, they might be tempted to accept to answer with a common: "I'm not smart enough".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do these people fit into becoming morally ideal individuals? Do they have a chance at it?
At understanding the full weight of the abstract concepts? Probably not. But in terms of a common sense approach? I think so.

Those of us that study Objectivism tend to remain "academic" in our discussions with one another. It's the best way to be honest about how we think, and also remain willing to be corrected if we're not considering a pertinent fact or concept. In my conversations with non-Objectivists, my approach is simpler.

To the uninitiated, Objectivism (or any philosophy, really) takes some time to digest. But it also takes personal effort on their part. The goal in discussing ideas with non-Objectivists should not be to "convert" them, but to put phrases into their heads that they'll remember. Call it "planting seeds."

Do that enough, and the right people will come around wanting to know more. You'll know whent he time is right to say "here's Virtue of Selfishness (or whichever text is most appropriate given the spark of their interest); read it, take your time and really think about it, and if you have any questions give me a call."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...